Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It doesn't seem that way to all interpreters. I say the referent of Is.7:14 is none other than the promised Messiah, not a precursor pointing on to an ultimate virgin birth. The passage as a whole is rich and interpretively challenging. There is a current crisis facing King Ahaz, who is immature and should obey the LORD who offers him a sign (anything he wishes) to strengthen him in confidence of God. He rejects God's offer, and in reaction the prophet denounces the king's false piety by setting forth an unprecedented sign (a virgin birth).It seems Isaiah 7:14 has a historical immediate fulfillment which points to the virgin birth. When we read the passage we find however that the king rejects the message and so the broader context is extended to the house of David (Isaiah 9).
Thank you. I see you've already answered one of the other prophecies in Matthew, but are the others relevant (Matt. 2:6, Matt. 2:18, Matt. 2:23, Matt. 3:3, Matt. 4:15-16)?There's the promise that David's son would sit on his throne, fulfilled in Solomon; that he would ever have a son sitting on his throne, fulfilled partially in a succession of heirs one following the other after the father died (sometimes with a co-regency for a while). Ultimately, this promise is kept in Christ, who is "of the seed of David after the flesh," and has sat down to reign forever.
Mat.2:6, ref. Mic.5:2 (Micah is contemporary of Isaiah), doesn't appear to have any intermediate considerations at all, but calls the hearers to a reconsideration of where one should be looking for deliverance. If the current occupant of the throne (a place of prestige) is degenerate or contemptible, yet don't despair of the promise; look back to the humble origin-place of that House, and remember that by divine promise there is one coming from there who will be the ideal King.Thank you. I see you've already answered one of the other prophecies in Matthew, but are the others relevant (Matt. 2:6, Matt. 2:18, Matt. 2:23, Matt. 3:3, Matt. 4:15-16)?
I'm curious if the use of "fulfillment" by Jesus and Matthew refers to a "completeness that was once incomplete", not necessarily they are coming to pass for the first time.
I take it the law was limited in scope by the Pharisees, but Jesus gives its full meaning in the second half of Matt. 5. So similarly, the prophecies came to pass in a limited way in their immediate context, but Jesus "fulfills" them in giving them their full scope. Am I off base?